[gwright]

Understanding costs with and without subsidies is critical. I believe the current reports about renewables being cost-effective relative to fossil fuels includes subsidies but I couldn't find the raw data after a few minutes of googling. If so, just means the costs are being shifted -- and that renewables are still more expensive than coal/gas.

The big problem is that we still don't have effective ways to time-shift energy production. Solar and wind power sources will never replace base-load coal/gas plants until we can solve that problem. Battery technology doesn't solve this problem yet.

[toomuchtodo]

>Solar and wind power sources will never replace base-load coal/gas plants until we can solve that problem. Battery technology doesn't solve this problem yet.

It's already being done in Hawaii:

http://www.utilitydive.com/news/hawaii-co-op-solarcity-ink-d...

[gwright]

An interesting data point but:

From the article: > In the power industry, Hawaii is commonly considered a "test case" for new renewable energy technologies because its power prices — the highest in the nation — have made cutting-edge resources cost-effective on the islands before they reach that point on the mainland.

So not directly applicable, right now, in most other locations.

[deciplex]

Since we already basically ignore, in an economic sense, the externalities that come with burning fossil fuels, ignoring any subsidies associated with renewables is sort of fair game. Or at least, if you're going to insist on factoring in subsidies, you should also account for externalities.